This claim comes from a study which — surprise! — was funded by the dairy industry. While industry funding does not necessarily invalidate science, it certainly sets up the perfect storm for spin, bias, and myopic statements. This study, like many others funded by the dairy industry, conveniently forgets to mention that dairy is but one of many sources of calcium (and, as I explained in this post, dairy does not provide all the nutrients we know play a crucial role in bone health and development).

The claim that an increase in dairy intake reduces obesity risk is questionable. A substantial 2008 meta-analysis of studies concluded that the link between calcium intake and weight management is weak at best. Furthermore, this is a prime example of the food industry’s hypocrisy; whenever rising obesity rates are addressed, they are quick to point out that genetics and physical activity can not be ignored. Yet, when it comes to weight loss or muscle-building, suddenly it’s solely about food — their food.

A little? Eight ounces (1 cup) of flavored milk contain a little over 3 teaspoons of added sugar, equivalent to three Oreo cookies, or four Dunkin’ Donuts cinnamon cake munchkins.

Now, get this. The American Heart Association’s guidelines on added sugar (released in 2009), children ages 4 to 8 should consume no more than 3 teaspoons of added sugar per day. In other words, that 8-ounce carton of chocolate milk delivers a day’s worth of added sugar. PS: The average 4 to 8-year old child in the United States takes in 21 teaspoons of added sugar on a daily basis. The last thing they need is chocolate milk.

That statement is attributed to the United States Department of Agriculture, which certainly has a vested interest in promoting dairy consumption. Alas, a 2005 meta-analysis of studies conducted by researchers without ties to the USDA or the dairy industry concluded that “scant evidence supports nutrition guidelines focused specifically on increasing milk or other dairy product intake for promoting child and adolescent bone mineralization.”

BEEF INDUSTRY

The average American equates the word “protein” with meat (and, in many cases, only meat). It has been my experience that many people are unaware that a cup of cooked oatmeal has 6 grams of protein, or that a serving of whole wheat pasta (which is very small) provides 8 grams of protein. This is in large part due to the beef industry’s relentless multi-million dollar campaigning efforts, which like to take sole proprietorship of nutrients — especially protein. Let’s take a look at some claims:

Sigh. While it is true that protein promotes satiety, it is far from a magic bullet for weight management. The average American consumes anywhere from 150 to 200 percent of their daily protein requirement. If protein consumption was the key to obesity prevention, wouldn’t obesity rates be significantly lower?

As far as muscle growth stimulation: despite the meat industry’s (and most male fitness magazines’) claims, protein is a small part of that equation. The two biggest factors for muscle growth are: 1) weight-bearing exercises that slightly tear muscle fibers and 2) caloric surplus. Yes, part of that caloric surplus will come from protein, but without those two key steps, muscle growth will not be stimulated, no matter how many rib-eye steaks you eat.

While that particular one is true, here are some others the beef industry conveniently left out, using a 3-ounce, 162-calorie portion of lean beef (which provides 0.2 mg of vitamin B6) as the reference point:

1 medium banana: 106 calories, 0.4 mg vitamin B6

1/2 cup broccoli, cooked: 27 calories, 0.2 mg vitamin B6

1 medium potato: 161 calories, 0.7 mg vitamin B6

1 cup spinach, cooked: 42 calories, 0.4 mg vitamin B6

SODA INDUSTRY

The soft drink industry is largely represented by the American Beverage Association, which apparently does not keep up with health research. Behold:

A 12-ounce bottle of Powerade that contain 5 teaspoons of added sugar contributes to good health? And so do the many Snapple teas that pack in eight teaspoons of added sugar in a single 8-ounce serving? I can’t even begin to comprehend how beverages made with gut flora-annihilating Splenda or carcinogenic aspartame or caramel color can possibly be linked to “good health”.

This is controversial, to say the least. Take a look at this study which concluded that “consumption of products containing artificial sweeteners may lead to increased body weight and obesity by interfering with fundamental homeostatic, physiological processes.”. Then there is this 2010 mini-review published in the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine which notes that “[the] consensus from interventional studies suggests that artificial sweeteners do not help reduce weight when used alone”, and that artificial sweeteners do not trigger “food reward pathways”.

Really? Because this 2009 human study from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, titled “Reduction in consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is associated with weight loss” references four human studies which support the idea that”calories consumed in liquid form (ie, liquid calories) have weak satiety properties and elicit poor energy compensation compared with calories from solid foods (ie, solid calories).”

Yes, but those foods balance out their phosphorus content with calcium. The problem occurs when phosphorus is consumed without calcium. Calcium and phosphorus like to be together. When we take in phosphorus without calcium (i.e.: drinking a soda in the afternoon), our body starts looking for calcium wherever it can find it (i.e.: leaching it from our bones).

CEREAL INDUSTRY

And so we come to the last stop of the “food industry dishonesty” tour. Let’s see what the cereal industry folks are trying to convince us of:

Some cereals can certainly be nutrient dense, but they are the exception, not the norm. The majority of cereals — especially those heavily marketed to children — are the nutritional equivalent of a piece of candy, a multivitamin, and some corn dust. It is always better to get nutrients from foods that inherently offer them, as they also usually come along with antioxidants, flavonoids, and phytonutrients that confer their own share of health benefits.

Additionally, those 100 to 130 calories are not very satiating due to the minimal amounts of fat, fiber, and protein. As for cereal being the number one source of whole grain in American diets — that is simply a reflection of how much cereal is consumed. Note that the statistic is not that cereal offers the most whole grain, but rather that it is the number one source (in other words, we eat more sugar-laden whole grain cereal than we do brown rice or whole wheat pasta — hardly something to brag about!).

“Studies show whole grains may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease.”

Yes, this is absolutely true. However, studies also show that added sugar increases the risk of coronary heart disease. This is it’s not good news that (mostly sweetened) cereals are the number one source of whole grains in the United States. For maximum health benefits, whole grains should be consumed without added sweeteners. This is why the cereal industry is dead wrong with its claim that a 150-calorie bowl of cereal with skim milk is nutritionally superior to a 170-calorie bowl oatmeal made with skim milk. Plain oatmeal delivers fiber, antioxidants, and a variety of nutrients without added sugars.

The cereal industry also loves to make unfair comparisons, as with this infamous Frosted Mini Wheats “study” conducted by Kellogg’s, which concluded that children who started their day with the sugary cereal had better attentiveness than — wait for it — children who skipped breakfast.

IN CONCLUSION

It should not come as a surprise that four of the most aggressively-marketed industries are also the same ones that rely on agricultural subsidies to thrive. The vast majority of cows subsist on corn and wheat, sodas are basically bubbly high fructose corn syrup, and many cereals are a variety of crop subsidies in a box (corn, wheat, soy, and even cottonseed sometimes).

I have always been a fan of quiet confidence when it comes to people, and the same applies to food. Usually, if a food needs a dozen fact sheets and a long “myth-busting” document regarding its possible negative health effects, well… let’s just say “the Frankenfood doth protest too much.”

At the very least, many of these “truths” are heavily questioned in reputable scientific journals. Contrary to what these industries want us to believe, their foods are not essential. This is not to say that a cup of Greek yogurt for breakfast each morning or the occasional beef kebab are health hazards. However, these industries are notorious for taking credit for nutrients that are not exclusive, and usually better sourced from other foods.

One thing that is impossible to refute? Prioritize whole, plant-based foods is a recipe for good health.

20 Comments

What the American Heart Association ctually advises about children’s sugar consumption is that they should get no more than half of their “discretionary calories” from sugar. That calculation varies dramatically by age, size (or sex) and activity level. The USDA provides tables on discretionary calories for children at its “My Pyramid” site.

OMG I’m so happy you posted this…. I am in the proccess of writing my speech for my communications class titled “Abuse of Nutrition Labeling and Effects of False Advertisement on America’s Waistline” You are awesome!! I’m so excited!

It’s just so crazy that a year ago I was drinking vitamin water and seriously thought it was good for me…

In 2009, the American Heart Association put out guidelines and recommendations in their journal (Circulation) with teaspoon amounts per calorie level. I linked to the guidelines in the post (here is the URL again, please take a look: http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/reprint/120/11/1011). In those guidelines, the recommendation for 1,600 calories (recommended for children ages 4 to 8 is no more than 3 teaspoons (48 calories) of added sugar per day. Age, size, sex, and activity level are not factors that come into play in those recommendations.

This is all interesting and good information. The only quibble I have is the comment about oatmeal not having sugar. Obviously, it doesn’t come with sugar, but I would say that few people can choke down a serving of oatmeal without some sugar. I know that I can’t!

Jessica, I know many who do (including myself). Plain oatmeal does not mean “oatmeal and water”. For example, I cook it with unsweetened vanilla-flavored soy or almond milk. I then add fruits (ie: sliced bananas), nuts or nut butters, and spices. Delicious!

The point I’m simply making is that in 2009, the AHA came out with those guidelines in their journal (which are clearly outlined in that article). I have blogged about how the AHA looks the other way when it comes to sugar; I am aware that they put their AHA “checkmark” on foods high in sugar, and have voiced my concerns about that practice.

For the purposes of this article, though, I was simply showing that one 8 oz serving of chocolate milk contains what the AHA, in *those* specific guidelines in *that* specific article, deemed as “a day’s worth” for children 4 to 8.

Here in Canada, 1 cup of ORDINARY milk – unflavored – contains 12 gm (nearly 3 tsp) of sugar. The obligatory label does not say whether that sugar is added, or comes as part of the original milk, or is a combination of both. In any case, that is nearly half the sugar content of a typical 8-oz milkshake, a horrendous fact which completely floors me. Time to give up milk for the sake of one’s health!

As for Oreo cookies: Nabisco shows that one Oreo sandwich cookie has 14 gm of sugar (Gag!) This is nearly 4 tsp by volume because 1 tsp of sugar is 4 gm of sugar. So your comparison of Oreos with flavored milk would be more accurarate to say that the milk’s sugar content (3 tsp or 12 gm) is equivalent to one (not three) Oreo cookies. It’s a nitpicky quibble, I know; the sugar content of milk is still terrible; but just for the sake of precision . . . Or did I make a mistake somewhere?

I specifically use the term “added sugar” to help minimize confusion. Yes, 8 ounces of unflavored cow’s milk contains 12 grams of sugar (3 teaspoons), no matter what country you are talking about.

8 ounces of chocolate milk contain 24 grams of sugar, which is why I mention “3 teaspoons of added sugar” (as opposed to “6 grams of total sugar”). I am not concerned with naturally occurring sugars since they come packed with nutrients (ie: the naturally occurring sugar in cow’s milk comes protein, while the sugar in a banana comes along with fiber) that help balance out spikes in blood sugar. I am concerned with *added* sugar since it is 100% empty calories and changes the ratio of “blood sugar balancing nutrient: sugar”).

I don’t follow what you are saying about Oreo cookies. One serving — 3 cookies — contains a little over 12 grams of sugar. One Oreo cookie does not contain 14 grams of sugar, unless you are talking about one that is the size of three standard ones.

Hi Andy, Have you heard of reports that cereal, aside from the fact that we know it’s not that healthy because of the sugar added, etc, is REALLY not healthy because of the extrusion process that the grains are put through to create the flakes, puffs, etc… That is, the high heat extrusion process denatures the proteins. My understanding is that all the vitamins and minerals are isolated (added back in), they aren’t really from the original whole grains used to make the cereal. Do you know if there is any truth to this? And if so, a good resource to better understand this.

There is more than one Ramazini study, and the links you point me to have nothing to say on the 2010 study.

Where is the independent, non-industry-tied research showing that aspartame poses no health risks when consumed on a long-term basis? Alas, as Melanie Warner pointed out in her article: “Putting restrictions on aspartame would come at a significant cost. Food companies and consumers around the world bought about $570 million worth of it last year. New regulatory action on aspartame would also jeopardize the billions of dollars worth of products sold with it.”

Let’s remember that at one point, artificial dyes that were later banned for carcinogenic properties, were declared “safe” by regulatory agencies at one point.

As far as the National Toxicology Program, they are finally catching on to what other organizations (including CSPI) have been saying about artificial dyes for a while. They are certainly not the ones spearheading the movement to reconsider the safety of artificial dyes. They are essentially realizing they need to address the issue. Furthermore, why must I be either 100% in support or 100% against NTP? Why can’t there be a gray area, in the same way that I agree with Harvard’s Walter Willett on many nutrition issues, except his demonizing of potatoes?